December 26, 2013

The event that likely precipitated the policy change was one incendiary tweet in the wake of yet another mass shooting. David W. Guth, a tenured journalism professor at University of Kansas, unleashed a 140-character rant that insisted the “blood [was] on the hands of the #NRA.” Opinionated, but not necessarily objectionable, but then he went on: “Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.” Oof. After a highly predictable and not wholly undeserved reaction, Guth was temporarily suspended.

The new Kansas policy, though, makes good and sure that any similar blunder would result in its author being permanently fired—in this case for “inciting violence” (though most believe Guth was not being literal). And that’s by far the least objectionable of the policy’s clauses. The regents seem to have milked the Guth incident for maximum possible censorship, and now the verboten also extends to statements that are “contrary to the best interests of the university” or anything that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers.”

It’s unconstitutional. But it’s also dumb as dirt. But it’s also the logical endpoint of the culture of political correctness that academics have permitted — and, often, championed — for decades. It would have been better to defend free speech, even if it doing so might have occasionally benefited a Baptist or something.

I don't intend to challenge your end conclusion, but I do think you're overlooking to origins of these recent stories of university self-censorship. It seems to me that it's because regents and admins are finally discovering what a complete bunch of incompetent loons they've been giving tenure to all these years, and now they need some way to rein in the crazy. A person who goes on an ignorant rant against a popular organization is not, I'm wiling to bet, a kindly and thoughtful educator dedicated to helping young people reach their full potential. He is, more likely, a self-righteous hack who's good for an easy A as long as you nod your head when he rants. Now that higher ed is crashing, schools need some way to get around tenure restrictions, and these policies seem to me to be one of them.

"The regents seem to have milked the Guth incident for maximum possible censorship, and now the verboten also extends to statements that are 'contrary to the best interests of the university' or anything that 'impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers.'”

Wonder where they got that wording? Professor Reynolds ought to know:

There are three legal requirements for those engaging in commercial speech, called the “Central Hudson Test” (from: Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission).

The first requirement is that commercial speech may not advertise an illegal product or service. In other words, businessmen can’t promote the sale of, say, nerve gas nor market the services of hit men. Well, may anyone else? Is it OK, for instance, if I, in a non-commercial capacity, tell people that I’d be glad to make them some nerve agent or to whack someone for them—or to direct them to someone who would?

The second requirement is that businessmen may not engage in “deceptive” commercial speech. One could find a great deal of wiggle room in defining deceptive, but let’s give the State the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that this means businessmen may not commit fraud. Once again, may anyone else?

Comes now, however, the third requirement. The government may legally regulate commercial speech if:

The government's interest in restricting the speech is substantial, the regulation in question directly advances the government's interest and the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve the government's interest [1]

Please explain how "it's unconstitutional". The first amendment CLEARLY states "CONGRESS shall pass no law...". It says NOTHING about what employers can do. Like the Phil Robertson incident, people shouldn't live in fear of their jobs when they express views, but firing someone because they express certain views in fact is VERY constitutional. The right to free association is there. Employers have the right to freely associate (which ALSO means not associating) with whomever they want.

I'm in favor of calling out Kansas on this, but let's not also use bad reasoning when calling them out.

Sue. When the Board of Regents sees that it is going to lose, allow it to settle only with a public, unequivocal admission that it was legally and ethically wrong. That should be the bottom floor of the settlement. Extracting an action plan for remission of its sins – à la BP or better – should be the objective.

1 year ago

Report Abuse

1 year agoEdit Report AbuseLink To Comment

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

1
2
3Next View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

One Trackback to “MORE ON KANSAS’S DUMB ACADEMIC CENSORSHIP SCHEME:
The event that likely precipitated the policy c…”

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.